1. Field of the Invention
The present invention generally relates to a chair which is mechanically-hydraulically actuated and electronically operated so that it does not require a user's physical efforts to produce motion. More specifically, the present invention is directed to such a chair that is capable of moving in an “arm and opposing leg” or cross-crawl motion.
2. Brief Description of the Related Art
For a person afflicted with partial or complete paralysis, neurological injuries, atrophy, physical impairments, or other types of injury or illness that cause the person to loose partial or full use of his or her limbs, retraining the person's brain patterning via means of “arm and opposing leg” exercise motion is a superior method to help the person gain greater range of motion in his or her limbs, neck and head, and extremities. In more serious cases, the “arm and opposing leg” motion can allow the person to regain the ability to voluntarily move and use his or her limbs, neck and head, and extremities. Specifically, the use of an “arm and opposing leg” neurological retraining device will re-pattern a person's brain and spinal cord to generate and organize the correct signals to allow the voluntary control of limb, neck and head or extremities.
Most existing equipment exercises involve one or both arms, one or both legs, or a combination of either right arm/right leg or left arm/left leg. This is called homolateral patterning. However, homolateral patterning does minimal exercising of neck and head, and even less exercising of the extremities, especially after an injury or illness.
Further, most exercise or retraining machines on the market today depend on human power (a person's own physical efforts) to perform exterior limb or other body movements. This means that the treatment therapy is exclusively beneficial to people who have voluntary control over their limbs. In other words, these therapies exclude and are not beneficial to the many people who partially or completely lack the ability to voluntarily control their limbs. Many people with partial or full loss of limb function, of neck and head function, or of spinal cord function, do not have sufficient limb or spinal strength or flexibility, to provide enough human power to properly utilize the existing equipment's capability. Furthermore, these individuals may not have the endurance in their overall bodies, limbs, head and neck, or extremities to effectively utilize the existing equipment properly. As such, results from existing exercise equipment where a person has to supply the power will be quite limited in their effectiveness.
In the prior art, there are several exercise devices which do not rely on the patient or user to supply the physical effort needed to power the equipment. U.S. Pat. No. 6,685,658, issued to Dietz et al., relates to an apparatus which moves the legs of a disabled person in a movement pattern that is similar to physiological walking. The device, which is a table, can be rotated from the horizontal position to the vertical.
A similar concept is used in U.S. Pat. No. 5,783,869, issued to Berdut. This apparatus is a horizontal table which can be tilted up from a flat horizontal plane. The drive mechanism provides reciprocal movement of a bed back and forth along the chassis in order to flex the joints and muscles in the limbs.
In the case of U.S. Pat. No. 5,901,581, issued to Chen et al., a rehabilitation apparatus consists of a transversely movable slider mechanism which is used to power the device to provide motion to the legs of the patient or user. The patient or user is in a horizontal, lying position when the motion treatment is being given.
In all three of these prior art devices, the patient or user is basically on a horizontal platform similar to a bed, at least to start the treatment exercise. None of these devices utilizes a chair platform to provide the exercise motion. Further, none of these patents discusses exercising the arms, as well as the legs. Moreover, there is no “arm and opposing leg” or gaiting exercise disclosed.
The idea of “arm and opposing leg” or at least a limited partial gaiting exercise appears in U.S. Pat. No. 4,628,909, issued to Tietsworth. Here, the device is powered so that a user does not have to operate the apparatus by supplying their own power, but only along one axis. There is no independent control of the arms and legs. However, the patient or user is in the supine position on a platform like a bed. Therefore the treatment is significantly less effective than it is with the “arm and opposite leg” treatment for a patient or user who is sitting in a chair undergoing “arm and opposite leg” treatment.
In two patents issued to Sokol, U.S. Pat. No. 5,964,692, which is a continuation of U.S. Pat. No. 5,709,633, a reciprocating exercise machine works on a “cross-crawl” principle, but it has two shortcomings. First, a user's head, back, and spine are in a position which is close to horizontal, rather than vertical, as it is in a chair. Second, the user has to supply all of the power to operate the machine.
In U.S. Pat. No. 5,611,758, issued to Rodgers, and U.S. Pat. No. 4,684,126, issued to Dalebout et al., an exercise apparatus positions the user's upper body in a semi-vertical position but with the legs in a semi-horizontal position. Again, this is not as neurologically effective as sitting in a chair. In addition, the user has to supply their own power to the device.
In U.S. Pat. No. 4,834,073, issued to Bledsoe et al., and U.S. Pat. No. 4,930,497, issued to Saringer, the disclosed exercise device is a passive one. That is, movement of the exercise device is dependent on the patient or user providing the physical effort to run the equipment. Further, both of these patents address leg exercises without addressing any exercises for the arms.
In U.S. Pat. No. 6,893,386, issued to Charoenchit, a device initially serves as a horizontal platform, like a bed. It can then be further adjusted into a chair form. Once again, the apparatus is a passive one, i.e. dependent on the patient's or user's physical efforts to power the equipment.
In U.S. Pat. No. 5,820,519, issued to Slenker, exercise equipment is used by attaching an apparatus to a headboard of a bed. Although the device provides exercises to both arms and both legs, once again, the patient or user has to provide all of the physical effort to power the equipment.
In U.S. Pat. No. 5,820,532 issued to Oliver, exercise equipment is also attached to a bed-like structure. Even though it is designed to exercise both arms and legs, once again, the use of the equipment is passive in nature, i.e. it depends on the patient or user to provide all of the physical effort and strength to power the equipment.
If the treatment therapy relies on a person's physical efforts to power the equipment, i.e. if the device needs to be human powered, then the treatment therapy will not have proper regulation of either the speed or the duration of the exercise treatment, nor will it provide the range of motion from the exercise treatment. Thus, it will be mostly ineffective. Further, due to the differences in human physiology, as well as the differences in a person's ability to engage in intensive and/or prolonged sessions with the machines to which he or she has to provide his or her own human effort, a person's progress is very difficult to measure. At any rate, any progress will be slow and quite uneven. Moreover, subject to the person's pain tolerance level, there might not be any measurable progress at all.
Further, unless the treatment therapy utilizes the “arm and opposing leg” approach, versus a single limb, both arms or both legs, same arm and same leg approach, neck and head treatment, or extremities treatment without incorporating the “arm and opposing leg” approach, the human brain will not receive adequate re-patterning signals to regain optimal use of the affected limb or limbs, neck and head, or extremities. Thus, there exists a need for an exercise or treatment apparatus that provides “arm and opposing leg” motion without requiring human power to operate the apparatus.